Will the Individual Mandate Get Struck Down?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Within a week, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to rule on the landmark 2010 health care law that President Obama - for better or worse - made the centerpiece of his initial time in office.

Conventional wisdom holds that the court will 'vote' mostly along party lines with a 50-50 chance of invalidating at least the part of the program that requires Americans to buy health insurance. But that means the high court is equally likely to uphold the law, much of which has not gone into effect yet.

What's that to you?

The political consequences may be immediate and severe, but the personal ramifications will be less extreme. Nobody should expect to lose part or all of their coverage overnight, and health costs won't immediately ratchet up or down in response.

"We've gotten assurances that insurers and employers won't change anything mid-stream, and will hang on for a while," said Jeff Munn, a benefits consultant with Fidelity Investments, who works with employers.

He suggests that the earliest consumers would see any impact from a decision would be at open-enrollment time, which usually comes in the fall.

But healthcare consumers - covered or not - should be ready for the decision, and for some of the longer-range implications. Here are a few steps you may have to take after the Supremes weigh in.

-- Shop for your kids' coverage. Already in effect is a provision that allows parents to keep their young adults covered by their family health insurance policies until they turn 26. Those 20-somethings won't be dumped overboard, even if the high court throws the entire Affordable Care Act into the round file. Maybe that's because that age cohort usually is profitable to insurers, but several major insurers have stepped up to say that they would keep that coverage anyway.

Less likely to last long term, in the face of a Supreme Court nullification, would be the provisions that eliminate pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny children coverage. Carrie McLean, an expert with private insurance broker ehealthinsurance.com, said she has heard several major carriers promise to keep that rule in place, at least for a while. But some carriers have also dropped child-only policies because of that provision.

So, why shop for separate insurance for your child or young adult? If they are healthy, they may be able to get better coverage cheaper than you can get folding them into your employers' plan. It's worth comparison shopping, under any scenario.

-- Grab a rebate check. The law requires health insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their premiums on medical care, and to refund to customers amounts over the remaining 20 percent that would be grabbed by profit and overhead. Insurance companies have already done the math for 2011, and several will be sending checks back to consumers . To see whether your insurer is paying rebates in your state, check the map at the web site of Consumers Union ( http://yourhealthsecurity.org/health-insurance-refund-map ). If the court invalidates this part of the law, that might be the last check insurers send.

-- Get a thorough checkup. McLean says that insurers say they'll continue to cover preventive care that the Affordable Care Act requires them to cover - such as mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations and more. But if the entire law is nullified, some of those tests may go away, especially if medical boards keep doing studies that throw their value into question.

The law also expands the preventive services that are free to Medicare participants. If the entire law is invalidated, that population could lose their free prostate, breast and colon cancer screenings.

-- Plan your retirement carefully. If the court allows the entire law to stand, medical consumers will have similar protections in every state by the time it is fully implemented in 2014. But if the individual mandate portion is knocked out, the variance from one state to another will matter a lot.

Some seven states now have "guaranteed issue" - meaning they ban the use of pre-existing conditions as a reason for denying coverage - without having individual purchase mandates, says Sam Gibbs, who as president of eHealth Government Systems, is helping to establish some state exchanges. He says that it doesn't typically cost very much more to buy insurance in those states than it does in Massachusetts, the one state that does require everyone to buy coverage.

Early retirees, who may be too young for Medicare and tend to have some pre-existing condition or another by the time they are pushing 60, would have the greatest incentive to pick a state with consumer-friendly healthcare policies. It would be a factor, like tax rates, to consider when deciding whether and where to move.

-- Lifetime caps could come back. This could be the most dangerous part for consumers who have serious and expensive illnesses. Many privately-sold plans offer lifetime coverage caps that are low enough to blow through quickly. Those caps are prohibited by this law. If that prohibition goes away, employer-sponsored plans would still largely avoid caps, suggests McLean, but private plans might reinstitute them. It would be wise to shop carefully for a cap-free policy.

-- Prepare to pay. Healthcare costs are going to rise 7.5 percent in 2013, even with healthcare reform, according to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently estimated that by 2021, total U.S. spending on health care could hit $4.8 trillion - with or without the healthcare law. Some providers say that without the individual mandate or Affordable Care Act limits on pricing and profits, individual consumers will pay more for their health care and their insurance coverage. That's starting to seem like a given, regardless of what the high court does.

-- Get ready for homework in the fall. Employees who get their coverage at work will most likely face new choices during the fall open-enrollment season, whether or not the court changes current law. If the justices wipe out the Affordable Care Act protections, there may be more costs for less coverage. Even with the law in place, policies are likely to have more fine print in terms of required co-pays, co-insurance, premiums, included and exempted coverage and the like. So, keep an eye on the high court, but study your health insurance glossary while you're waiting.

A lot of the articles I've read seem to suggest that experts think the Individual Mandate will be struck down this coming week (I haven't read that many articles on this subject). Some members I know are in touch with the legal stuff, so I wonder if they've been keeping up with the case and have any insights for those of us less in the know. Also, just how bad might it get should the mandate get rejected but the rest of the law remain in tact?

**Grey Templar**

If the Individual Mandate gets struck down, it won't change what really matters, but it will be a serious blow to Obama for the election.

If the entire thing gets struck down, Obama's toast. His political career would be all but extinct.

If it doesn't get struck down, it will just polarize the situation even more.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
If the entire thing gets struck down, Obama's toast. His political career would be all but extinct.

At the level of the Executive? Yes.

Congress though? Probably not. He has name recognition and is popular in Illinois. But then why bother? He would make more on the speaking circuit.

Grey Templar wrote:
If it doesn't get struck down, it will just polarize the situation even more.

And hilarity will ensue.

LordofHats wrote:
A lot of the articles I've read seem to suggest that experts think the Individual Mandate will be struck down this coming week (I haven't read that many articles on this subject).

It will come down to Roberts and Kennedy.

**Grey Templar**

He certaintly can give a hell of a speech. He'd make a great newscaster.

**Jihadin**

This and the AZ law that might still go against the gov't. Justices already harped on the effect of the gov't in dealing with illegal immigrants.

**Zyllos**

Personally, I think the individual mandate will get struck down but the rest will stay in place.

Also on a personal note, I do not like all the major stuff that Democrats say, too much government, but Republics are just not doing anything. They rather just say no to everything until it all falls apart. That and I think Romney is a fool.

**Piston Honda**

For some reason I have a feeling SCOTUS will punt the ball and wait a bit to rule on the bill.

I think the mandate will eventually get struck down with parts of the bill in place.

Really wish both sides would work together to get something done about the rising costs of insurance/health care but they won't. Too politically divided.

**Ouze**

I think it's likely to get struck down because SCOTUS is pretty fearlessly partisan and I can't see them going the other way now. As with many of the recent cases they've taken, the merits of the case are meaningless. It's going to be 5-4; complete overturn in my opinion - but I wouldn't put money on it either.

For what it's worth, as someone who really wants to see socialized medicine (NHS style or similar) I have my doubts about how they implemented this, via the commerce clause... I think it's a pretty iffy argument.

I also think it's sort of irrelevant whether it gets shot down or not. I think people really do want many (most) of the things the law did, and they are likely to be re-implemented over time anyway regardless of who is in office.

**Vulcan**

Zyllos wrote:Personally, I think the individual mandate will get struck down but the rest will stay in place.

Also on a personal note, I do not like all the major stuff that Democrats say, too much government, but Republics are just not doing anything. They rather just say no to everything until it all falls apart. That and I think Romney is a fool.

It's part of their strategy to get Obama out of office. If they prevent the government from doing anything to help the economy, Obama takes it in the neck on election day.

The amazing part is how many people don't seem to realize that that's what they are doing, and blame Obama for nothing getting done.

I really worry about the future of the country when people are so willfully blind...

**Frazzled**

Vulcan wrote:
Zyllos wrote:Personally, I think the individual mandate will get struck down but the rest will stay in place.

Also on a personal note, I do not like all the major stuff that Democrats say, too much government, but Republics are just not doing anything. They rather just say no to everything until it all falls apart. That and I think Romney is a fool.

It's part of their strategy to get Obama out of office. If they prevent the government from doing anything to help the economy, Obama takes it in the neck on election day.

The amazing part is how many people don't seem to realize that that's what they are doing, and blame Obama for nothing getting done.

I really worry about the future of the country when people are so willfully blind...

You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

**Vulcan**

Frazzled wrote:

You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

It didn't help that in the beginning Obama wanted to be the Great Compromizer and squandered the first two years. But try taking a look at the number of filibusters used in the past two sessions of Congress - over TWICE what was used in any session previous. And then take a look at who used them.

Makes the point pretty thoroughly.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Back in the day parties weren't the "sides".

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Back in the day parties weren't the "sides".

Was this before or after one Congressman nearly beat another one to death with a cane?

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Was this before or after one Congressman nearly beat another one to death with a cane?

Probably during, sides used to be about agreement and not agreement. Party meant little.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Was this before or after one Congressman nearly beat another one to death with a cane?

Probably during, sides used to be about agreement and not agreement. Party meant little.

Er...yea.. no...

You're forgetting the fine history of party machines, and party line voting etc. etc. Thats been around since at least the turn of the century (19th century).

Starngely even Bush managed to get bills passed with a divided Congress. So this sudden change must have been really sudden.
But then again, Obama had Democratic majorities in both houses so that shouldn't have been a problem either. Maybe if he didn't hand over the "stimulus" to Pelosi and then went after Cap N Tax and Obamacare things might have turned out differently. I had hoped things would have turned out differently.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Er...yea.. no...

You're forgetting the fine history of party machines, and party line voting etc. etc. Thats been around since at least the turn of the century (19th century).

Not if you look at Congressional votes. Then there's the Blue Dogs, and the Southern Strategy, etc.

Not much party line voting at the federal level.

Frazzled wrote:
Starngely even Bush managed to get bills passed with a divided Congress. So this sudden change must have been really sudden.

Outside 9/11 related votes most of Bush's bills were close, following the trend begun with Reagan.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Er...yea.. no...

You're forgetting the fine history of party machines, and party line voting etc. etc. Thats been around since at least the turn of the century (19th century).

Not if you look at Congressional votes. Then there's the Blue Dogs, and the Southern Strategy, etc.

Not much party line voting at the federal level.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, what, really? er... me no buy that.

I can't really give you a citation (Well, I could, but it would either cost me time or you money.) because this is basically textbook stuff.

Frazzled wrote:
However, assuming you're correct, thats just a massive indictment of Obama. He didn't do what others could. Frankly the US likes divided government. Its crap but tends to keep crap legislation to a slightly lesser amount than PRI rule.

You're still assuming that partisanship has been the same over time, it hasn't been.

Frazzled wrote:
Yep. But they still passed. Some things didn't pass. thats how it works.

Healthcare passed, so did DADT, and others.

Seems like Obama is doing well, and that bipartisanship is a sham.

**Frazzled**

So Obama passed what he wanted. We are in agreement.

And can't run on it.. Excellent!

**dogma**

Oh, he can run it. What is Mitt going to say in opposition?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:Oh, he can run it. What is Mitt going to say in opposition?

15% unemployment

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

See the words 'work with' that you wrote there? That means coming together, with both sides having a give and take arrangement. That means each party having a culture in which individual congressmen can cross the floor. This excludes the current Republican Party.

Oh, and if you look at the history of the Democrats holding 60 seats in the senate, and realise that after legal disputes Franken was only granted his seat on 30 June 2009, and that Scott Brown was sworn into office on 4th February 2010, then you realise the Democrats only held that 60 strong majority for a couple of days over 7 months. In that time that passed the largest healthcare reform in US history. So claims of not doing anything when the Republican couldn't filibuster are just plain wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:You're forgetting the fine history of party machines, and party line voting etc. etc. Thats been around since at least the turn of the century (19th century).

There was a period in which party did actually mean very little, as the Democrats had morphed into two very distinct entities, those representing progressive city electorates, and those representing very conservative country elements who really, really hated the Republican party, located entirely in the South. The result of this was a system in which an issue could find its strongest support and opposition within the same party.

That changed, of course, when the South got really angry over the Federal government telling them to stop being racist. Nixon's Southern strategy managed to shift that voting block over to the Republicans, and so far the Republican party has managed to keep social conservatives, evangelicals, pro-business centrists and libertarians voting in unison.

Starngely even Bush managed to get bills passed with a divided Congress. So this sudden change must have been really sudden.

Uh, everyone gets bills passed. Government is a day to day business and most bills aren't that political. The question is how many highly political pieces of needed reform you can get over the line.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:15% unemployment

So he's going to make a number up? Actually, that's probably exactly what Romney is going to do, given the history of nonsense claims he's made so far, so I'd have to agree with you there.

**Ouze**

I think we've pretty fairly established at this point "lying your ass off" now works surprisingly well in American politics. People are too disengaged to bother to find out the truth, and the media certainly isn't going to call anyone out on their bald-faced lies; lest they risk their access. We deserve the crappy nonfunctional government we have.

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:I think we've pretty fairly established at this point "lying your ass off" now works surprisingly well in American politics. People are too disengaged to bother to find out the truth, and the media certainly isn't going to call anyone out on their bald-faced lies; lest they risk their access. We deserve the crappy nonfunctional government we have.

I don't know if individuals deserve to suffer because of the failing of an electorate as a whole, but otherwise I agree with you entirely.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

As far as I know from listening to discussions on this subject by much more educated folk than myself, the bill has no severence clause. Which essentially means if one part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the whole bill goes away. There is no way legally in our system that I am aware of to take out just part of it and keep the rest.

I am of the opinion that the bill is going down, from everything I have heard and read, and just how it feels.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:Oh, he can run it. What is Mitt going to say in opposition?

15% unemployment

Sure, but that doesn't really address the passage of healthcare (or DADT) which Mitt will struggle with because of Romneycare.

At the end of the day, while the economy is important, it can't be your only campaign point; especially given Romney's past in business (Not that he did anything bad, its just it can be sold that way.).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
There was a period in which party did actually mean very little, as the Democrats had morphed into two very distinct entities, those representing progressive city electorates, and those representing very conservative country elements who really, really hated the Republican party, located entirely in the South. The result of this was a system in which an issue could find its strongest support and opposition within the same party.

I should clarify that at the state level and below party has always been pretty important due to their ability to raise funds, something that lower levels politicians struggle with due to generally being less connected to wealth than their federal counterparts. Additionally, the smaller your unit of government the more important that little D and R become, as most people simply don't pay attention to state and local politics (especially local). Though, that being said, a lot of smaller cities (30k and below) have nonpartisan elections.

**Frazzled**

Unemployed people are not going to give a gak about Obamacare.

People worried about their jobs are not going to give a gak about Obamacare.

The US populace typically votes its pocketbook. Democrat, Republican whatever. If the bank account is down is unemployment time for the current administration and its party.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:I don't know if individuals deserve to suffer because of the failing of an electorate as a whole, but otherwise I agree with you entirely.

But is it really "suffering"? No one is forcing nearly half the electorate to not bother voting, or to respond so positively to negative campaigns, or to patronize news organizations in such overwhelming numbers that they know lie to them regularly, and abdicate their responsibility the rest of the time. Maybe saying "we got what we deserve" was the wrong spin on it. Maybe it would have been better to say that the American people desire and thus obtain lousy government; which we then complain about, repeating the cycle ad nauseum. People want biased news; people want candidates that promise to try to bone "the other side" over as much as possible knowing full well that's what got us where we are. They don't really want compromise and shared sacrifice or honestly.

Here's a good example, the first one that came to mind. Early on when Obama first started running, he wasn't wearing an American flag pin. When asked about it, he made a comment to the effect of "I think it's more important to be a good American and show your patriotism with your deeds, rather then wearing a pin" or something like that, I'm not looking it up. Since we always profess we hate political non-answers, trite bs and meaningless phrases, how did we respond to an honest answer? There were headlines about "Pingate". FFS. And of course, we ate it up; because we are huge hypocrites who actually want safe non-answers. Romney knows it; every successful politician does; and of course Obama wised up and started wearing the pin (because it's easier to go with the flow then to lead, and the customer is always right to boot).

In Romney's case, it's sort of amusing that he refuses to give any specifics on his ideas because he knows he'll be attacked for them; which seems to be a lot more palatable then "we need to pass healthcare to find out what's in it"; despite them being the exact same rather ridiculously stupid argument. But again, hypocrisy works so you pluck that chicken, buddy.

Wow this got sort of rambly; but I guess long story short I love my country and it wearies me to see how things have been going, and how much worse I imagine it's going to get.

**Orlanth**

Vulcan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

It didn't help that in the beginning Obama wanted to be the Great Compromizer and squandered the first two years. But try taking a look at the number of filibusters used in the past two sessions of Congress - over TWICE what was used in any session previous. And then take a look at who used them.

Makes the point pretty thoroughly.

Q1. Who did use them, as in which side and over what type of issue. What is going on?

Q2. A lot of he replies here indicate Obama is finished or could possibly be finished due to this issue. Is his re-election chances that unlikely. I hear other people saying (off this thread) the Republicans have 'no chance' because they don't have a strong candidate choice. While both catalysts could be true, both results can't be, not realistically anyhow. Some clarity is needed.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:
Q1. Who did use them, as in which side and over what type of issue. What is going on?

Republicans primarily, over a number of issues.

Orlanth wrote:
Q2. A lot of he replies here indicate Obama is finished or could possibly be finished due to this issue. Is his re-election chances that unlikely. I hear other people saying (off this thread) the Republicans have 'no chance' because they don't have a strong candidate choice. While both catalysts could be true, both results can't be, not realistically anyhow. Some clarity is needed.

Its pretty close to a 50-50 split in terms of odds. Obama is hovering in the high 40's (sounds bad, but is actually fine historically) in terms of approval, and he trades a point with Mitt every week or so. However, he has incumbent advantage, which gives him the slight edge at this point. Still far, far too close to call; especially with so much time left.

In general people claiming either one has no chance are either engaging in wishful thinking, or trying to sensationalize for money.

Frazzled wrote:Unemployed people are not going to give a gak about Obamacare.

People worried about their jobs are not going to give a gak about Obamacare.

They probably won't vote either. The people that vote tend to be better off economically, and employed; though employment status is less important as it is usually the working class that's not employed.

Frazzled wrote:
The US populace typically votes its pocketbook. Democrat, Republican whatever. If the bank account is down is unemployment time for the current administration and its party.

Well, sort of. Some people vote their pocketbook, but not as many as you would think because people of higher income vote far more than those of lower; meaning that their pocketbook isn't as critical to them. People vote on issues, and candidates. In this instance the critical candidate is Obama, and the critical issues are the economy and healthcare.